The Economic Contribution of the Private, Recreation-Based Aquaculture Industry in the Western ...

114 Pages·2010·2.39 MB·English

The Economic Contribution of the Private, Recreation-Based Aquaculture Industry in the
Western United States

Daniel Deisenroth*
Dr. Craig A. Bond
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Colorado State University

October, 2010

* Additional collaborators listed in Appendix A.
Copyright 2010 by Daniel Deisenroth and Craig A. Bond. All rights reserved. Readers may make
verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this
copyright notice appears on all such copies.
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………… .iv

Executive Summary.……………………………………………………………………………….v

Section 1: Introduction and Problem Statement…………………………………………………...1

Section 2: Data Collection and Sampling Frame…………………………………………………. 4

Section 2.1: ASRF Producer Survey………………………………………………………….. 4

Section 2.2: ASRF Customers………………………………………………………………....7

Section 2.3: Recreational Anglers…………………………………………………………….. 9

Section 3: Methodology………………………………………………………………………… .10

Section 3.1: General Approach…………………………………………………………….. ..10

Section 3.2: Forward Linkage Construction………………………………………………… 14

Section 3.2.1: ASRF Industry…………………………………………………………… 14

Section 3.2.2: ASRF Customers………………………………………………………….15

Section 3.2.3: ASRF Induced Anglers…………………………………………………... 16

Section 4: Results……………………………………………………………………………….. .18

Section 4.1: Summary Statistics from the Surveyed Populations…………………………… 18

Section 4.1.1: ASRF Producers…………………………………………………………..18

Section 4.1.2: ASRF Customers………………………………………………………….21

Section 4.1.3: Anglers…………………………………………………………………… 26

Section 4.2: Production Functions and Multipliers…………………………………………. 31

Section 4.2.1: ASRF Producers…………………………………………………………. 32

Section 4.2.2: ASRF Customers……………………………………………………….... 39

Section 4.2.3: Anglers………………………………………………………………….. .41
ii
Section 4.3: Forward Linkages and Total Economic Contribution of the ASRF Industry...... 44

Section 5: Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….. .49

References………………………………………………………………………………………. 53

Appendix A: Project Collaborators……………………………………………………………… 57

Appendix B: Producer Survey Cover Letter……………………………………………………. .58

Appendix C: Producer Survey……………………………………………………………………59

Appendix D: Customer Survey Cover Letter……………………………………………………. 67

Appendix E: Customer Survey………………………………………………………………….. 68

Appendix F: California Angler Survey Cover Letter…………………………………………….77

Appendix G: California Angler Survey…………………………………………………………..78

Appendix H: California Angler Study Area Map………………………………………………. .86

Appendix I: Colorado Angler Survey Cover Letter…………………………………………….. 87

Appendix J: Colorado Angler Survey…………………………………………………………… 88

Appendix K: Colorado Angler Study Area Map………………………………………………....96

Appendix L: Alaska………………………………………………………………………………97

Section 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………. 97

Section 2: Sportfishing and Alaska’s Hatchery System…………………………………….. 97

Section 3: Economic Contribution of Recreational Fish Production in Alaska…………….. 99

Section 3.1: Stocked Fish Induced Angler Contributions……………………………….. 99

Section 3.2: Hatchery Induced and Total Economic Contributions……………………..101

Section 4: Extensions and Recommendations for Future Research…………………………103

References………………………………………………………………………………….. 105

iii
Acknowledgements

This final report is the culmination of a project funded by the Western Regional
Aquaculture Center (WRAC) entitled “Economic Impacts of Private Sector Aquaculture-Based
Recreational Fishing in the Western USA.”
While much of the work was conducted by researchers at Colorado State University, this
study could not have been completed without the gracious, intelligent, and pointed help of
Rebecca Cooper, Ken Cline, and the folks at Liley Fisheries in Colorado. Their expert advice
helped to guide the research effort in the direction of the most important and relevant
information, as well as several interesting and unanswered questions. There are many others who
have contributed in no small part to the research effort as well. Fred Conte and Gary Fornshell
provided valuable insight early on and helped jump start the survey data collection process. Dr.
Y. Hossein Farzin and Timothy Rakitan were indispensable in the California data collection
effort, as were Jay Griebling and Kawa Ng in Colorado. Collecting data from privately stocked
fisheries, where no publicly available list is available, was facilitated by help from Cline Trout
Farms, E & J Fish Farms, and perhaps most importantly the Colorado Aquaculture Association.
Throughout this research process, the Colorado Aquaculture Association has proven itself as one
which should stand as an example of leadership and commitment to quality both in output and in
service.

Suggested Citation: Deisenroth, D., and C.A. Bond. 2010. The Economic Contribution of the
Private, Recreation-Based Aquaculture Industry in the Western United States. Ft Collins, CO:
Colorado State University. Available at: http://dare.colostate.edu/tools/aquaculture.aspx.
iv
Executive Summary

Objectives and Purpose of Study: The primary objective of this project is to develop
information about the economic contributions of the Aquacultural Suppliers of Recreational
Fisheries (ASRF) industry in the western United States. Sampling frames were developed for
the ASRF industry, their direct customers, and for ASRF-induced recreational anglers in the
western United States. Using these sampling frames, expenditure and sales data were collected
from the three populations. The collected data were integrated into input-output models in order
to estimate the total economic contribution of the ASRF industry in the western United States.

Survey Procedures and Response Rate: Sampling frames were developed with the help of
local and state-level permitting agencies and industry advisors. These sampling frames include a
broad sample base in order to generate the most generalizable results possible. Surveys were
administered in accordance with the Dillman Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000) to all
three populations: ASRF producers, their direct customers, and recreational anglers. Survey
distribution occurred between January 2008 and January 2010. Over this two year period, nearly
3000 individuals were contacted and data from nearly 1500 individuals was gathered. While
ASRF producers and their direct customers were sampled via a mail survey, anglers were often
intercepted in person in order to facilitate higher response rates. Table E-1 summarizes the
survey distribution process for the three groups.
v
Table E-1: Response Rates and Administration Dates by Survey
Dates Surveyed Excluded
Administered Individuals Individuals* Respondents Response Rate
ASRF Survey 1/08 - 12/09 418 245 52 30%
ASRF Customer Survey 11/09 - 1/10 686 94 260 44%
Colorado Private Fishery
Angler Survey 6/09 - 11/09 366 11 222 63%
Colorado Public Fishery
Angler Survey 6/09 - 11/09 873 0 489 56%
California Angler Survey 7/09 - 9/09 613 0 359 59%
*Excluded for reasons including not in business, not an angler, and undeliverable address
Primary Findings
ASRF Producers
• A typical ASRF business is operated by a 55-year old married man who has been in the
business over 20 years. Gross sales for ASRF businesses average $330,000 annually
(although sales are much higher for a few businesses but lower for a majority of
businesses).
• There are a maximum of 173 ASRF producers in the Western United States. These
businesses do $53.2 million in direct recreational fish sales annually.
o Every dollar of ASRF products sold results in an additional $.85 in indirect and
induced economic activity in the Western region. Every million dollars sold
supports 30 full-time jobs.
ASRF Customers
• ASRF customers come in many forms, including private backyard ponds, private dude
ranches, private fishing clubs, homeowners’ associations, fee-fishing operations, and
public waters. The average ASRF customer purchases $2,656 in ASRF products and
attributes $13,593 of annual sales to the purchase of these products.
vi
• The ASRF industry supports over 20,000 privately-stocked fisheries in the Western
region. These customers’ sales amount to $272 million annually.
o Every dollar of ASRF customer sales results in an additional $.79 in indirect and
induced economic activity in the Western region. Every million dollars sold
supports 41 full-time jobs.
Anglers
• California Anglers spend an average of $180 on a typical fishing day on items such as
airfare and gasoline, while Colorado anglers spend $135. The average sampled angler
spends $150 per day within the Western United States.
• Angler days induced by ASRF fish stocking total 6.99 million annually. Total direct
ASRF-induced angler expenditures total $1.04 Billion annually in the Western region.
o Every dollar of Angler expenditures leads to an additional $.83 of economic
activity in the region. Every million dollars of angler expenditures support 36 full-
time jobs.
Total Economic Contribution
• Accounting for all ASRF industry-related spending (including direct ASRF expenditures,
expenditures from first point-of-sale customers attributable to fish stocking activity, and
angler activity) yields an estimated total of $1.913 billion in annual expenditures in the
Western Region.
• The multiplier effect of ASRF-induced angler expenditures results in 26,000 full-time
jobs in the Western United States.
vii
• Accounting for the forward and backward linkages ASRF production, every dollar of
direct ASRF producer sales is associated with a total of $35.92 in annual within-region
output.
• The forward and backward linkages of every million dollars of ASRF Sales supports 492
full-time jobs in the Western United States.
• With most of the producers concentrated in California, Colorado, Oregon, Utah and
Washington, the geographic distribution of the ASRF industry’s impact is not uniform.
Nearly half of the total economic contribution of the ASRF industry accrues within
California.

viii
The Economic Contribution of the Private, Recreation-Based Aquaculture Industry in the
Western United States

1. Introduction and Problem Statement
Recreational fishery managers are often faced with challenges regarding decisions on how to
manage a particular fishery, recognizing that in some rural areas, economies may depend almost
exclusively on tourism dollars generated from that fishery. Rising population levels have led to
increased pressure on fisheries, leading managers to implement various management strategies in
order to maintain fishery quality, including restricting fishing techniques, restricting terminal tackle
or bag limits, and stocking fish. In the United States, augmenting fish populations by stocking
hatchery-reared fish is common practice, with 3.5 million catchable trout, 58 million warm-water
and 13 million sub-catchable cold-water species stocked in Colorado alone each year by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW, 2010a).
In fact, much of the 45 billion in retail sales that recreational fishing generates annually in
the United States (ASA, 2008) is supported by fish stocking programs which augment fishing
quality and encourage angler trips to local and distant fisheries. For example, Caudill (2005) found
that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) stocked 9.4 million rainbow trout in 2004 and that
for each dollar of fish produced in USFWS hatcheries, $32 dollars of economic activity was
generated in local and regional economies.
While most people are aware of federal and state fish stocking agencies such as the USFWS
or state-level fish and game departments, few are aware of the private aquaculture businesses which
supply fish for both private and public fisheries. These businesses provide fish for thousands of
privately-stocked bodies of water in the Western United States, including municipal, county, and
state public waters, private fishing clubs and dude ranches, fee fishing ponds, and private land. Not
1
only are privately stocked fisheries utilized by lifelong members and affiliates, but they also
supplement the fishing opportunities for other anglers provided by state and federal fisheries. The
stocking of fish in public and private waters encourages tourism, which in turn stimulates the
economies of the rural communities adjacent to these waters.
There has been very little research documenting the economic contributions or impacts of
any portion of the aquaculture industry in any country, and to date, no studies have investigated the
economic contributions of that portion of the industry related to support of recreational freshwater
fishing (although Váradi, 2001 provides background of the relationship between inland aquaculture
and fisheries in Europe).
Economic impacts are usually calculated using input-output models, such as IMPLAN,
which trace the forward linkages of exogenous expenditures on inputs using matrices of linked
sectors calibrated to a specific region. Examples of this technique as applied to aspects of
aquaculture production include investigations of the regional economic impact of the farmed-shrimp
industry in India (Reddy, Reddy, and Kumar, 2004) and southern Honduras (Stanley, 2003) in a
development context and the contributions of the pet turtle industry to the Louisiana economy
(Hughes, 1999). Several studies have used similar regional techniques to estimate the economic
impacts of entire fisheries from the demand side by using angler expenditures to trace through the
impact of the fishery, including the recreational bluefin tuna fishery in Hatteras, NC (Bohnsack, et
al., 2002) and a largemouth bass fishery at Lake Fork, TX (Chen, Hunt, and Ditton, 2003).
To date, however, the role and economic impact of the aquacultural suppliers of recreational
fish (ASRF) industry on the Western United States has not been assessed in detail. In order to
address this gap in the literature, this report documents the total economic contribution of the ASRF
industry in this region. Furthermore, this report provides information which future researchers can
2